A"somewhat rational" piece on the shooting and why gun bans doesn't work

Probably a dupe

http://www.businessweek.com/articles...ign_id=yhoo#p1

The only gun control that would address the Santa Barbara scenario would involve broad weapon bans and confiscation. The Supreme Court has indicated that this would not be constitutional. In any event, it’s not politically or socially feasible. We’re a nation in which 300 million firearms are already in private hands, and further weapons are obtainable by anyone with a clean record. Cross all those guns with instances of severe mental illness—and provide a template for action disseminated by mass media and the Internet—and what you end up with is a recipe for the expression of evil in a most shocking form

I liked this...

He didn’t need an “assault weapon,” or military-style semiautomatic rifle. Ordinary handguns did just fine. He didn’t need large-capacity ammunition magazines; those are already illegal in California. He planned ahead: three pistols in case one jammed, and more than 40 10-round mags, which provided ample ammo for his deadly mission. California has some of the toughest gun-control laws in the country, far more stringent than what the federal government imposes. Those laws didn’t stop, or even significantly slow, Rodger.

MORE LAWS ARE OBVIOUSLY NOT THE SOLUTION

He even wrote in his manifesto that only the police could stop him, therefore he would not exact his revenge on Halloween since the police ramp up coverage for the holiday.

Gun laws are better at creating unarmed victims that could have otherwise resisted such evil. End of story.

There is pure evil in this world. Always has been, always will be.

But, but, but... More laws will give the prosecutors more to charge Elliott Rodger with to keep him in jail longer.

What's that? Rodger killer himself before he could be arrested?!

Nevermind.


Thanks for posting that Great-Kazoo. It's nice to see a well reasoned published article on the subject versus the abject emotionalism we typically see. And this from a Bloomberg publication. Any bets on how long this writer keeps his job?

I believe I read that the criminal's first three kills were his roommates and he used a hammer and knife on them.

I'm sorry, but I put about as much stock in the author of that article as I do in any liberal anti-gun dolt commenting on Facebook. You ask why? It's because of this ridiculous fallacy that all anti-gun morons with very little knowledge in the culture of gun ownership always spout when it comes to guns and college campus:

Quote:

---

In this situation, Feldman’s libertarian solution—everyone should be armed and ready to shoot at all times—strikes me as self-parody. “The easiest way to stop a deranged killer is to have a gun,” he told Human Events. “Had one of the three knife victims had a hand gun, they could have potentially shot the culprit and stopped the killing.” ...
On one level, what Feldman said was true. If one of the other students happened to have been armed and possessed the skill and presence of mind to blast Rodger during the initial attack, maybe—maybe—the murders would have been stopped. But is that really a solution that any parent wants to contemplate: sending their child off to college with a Glock, ready and able to kill their roommate in self-defense? What would the typical drunken frat party lead to if celebrants were walking around with loaded pistols? Arming undergrads can’t be the best way to deal with the occasional unbalanced 22-year-old.

---

No Mr. Barrett, that's not how it works... parents don't decide their college age child should carry, that decision is up to the individual. And why do they always say "oh great idea, let's arm college kids, so they can go to keggers and frat parties and get drunk with a pistol on their hip"? That's the most idiotic fallacy I hear far too often in these discussions. All states have laws that make it a crime to be in possession of a firearm while under the influence. Only a complete moron would go to a frat party armed with the intention of getting drunk. And I've asked before, why are college campuses so special? Case in point, what is the difference between the north side of Colfax between 5th and 7th, and the south side? One side of the street is Denver, the other is Auraria Campus. Aside from an imaginary boundary, I fail to see how a college campus is any different than the rest of the surrounding area.

Post #1 ties into the concentration camp thread nicely, just as Jims sig line.
If we ever see a population disarmed we will see the resurrection of evil that will make "The Final Solution" look like summer camp.
I think a portion of the left even get it to a degree, we don't have a gun problem in this nation.
We have a people problem.
"Gun Violence" has declined since the early 90's.

What's really scary is the instant faith in military/LEO without any sort of inquiry into motivations, convictions, or allegiances. The left is willing to arm you for a battle with the Terminator so long as you have a badge or military I.D. no questions asked. Now, to be clear, I am not at all against mil/LEO. Rather, it frightens me that being in a position of authority is a free-pass to be armed, while being an upstanding citizen is a crime in the liberal paradigm. That approach has been tried quite a few times. It often ends up with mass graves that the disarmed populace are lined up and shot into (Pol Pot, Serb/Croat/Bosnian conflict, Stalin, Iranian revolution, et. al.).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ZERO THEORY

What's really scary is the instant faith in military/LEO without any sort of inquiry into motivations, convictions, or allegiances. The left is willing to arm you for a battle with the Terminator so long as you have a badge or military I.D. no questions asked. Now, to be clear, I am not at all against mil/LEO. Rather, it frightens me that being in a position of authority is a free-pass to be armed, while being an upstanding citizen is a crime in the liberal paradigm. That approach has been tried quite a few times. It often ends up with mass graves that the disarmed populace are lined up and shot into (Pol Pot, Serb/Croat/Bosnian conflict, Stalin, Iranian revolution, et. al.).

---

THIS! I honestly asked someone what the difference between your average gun owner and a non-infantry member of the military. Their response "The military is trained how to use those guns properly." Being a former non-infantry member of the military, I can tell you that I've met folks who are trained a heck of a lot better in the use of firearms than many infantry members. So this misplaced faith just proves to me that people have unrealistic expectations of military and LEO. 911 doesn't illicit a 30 seconds or less response... police still have to get from where they are at to you, who's going to protect you in the meantime?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronin13

I can tell you that I've met folks who are trained a heck of a lot better in the use of firearms than many infantry members. So this misplaced faith just proves to me that people have unrealistic expectations of military and LEO.

---

It's dangerous because liberals will gladly sign away our rights (theirs included) because they think that gaining authority automatically makes you morally infallible. You get out what you put in, and a lot of power-hungry, angry, emotionally unstable, and or vengeful people sign up to positions of authority. Going through the academy or BCT does not fix that. Furthermore, we have members here who are real-deal competitors, instructors, and just all around crack shots. But the left thinks they're dangerous, while they're more than willing to let these guys own actual assault rifles:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pugNaCZ1RR8